My repeated commitment to uphold the primacy of American law and constitutional protections for Texans, including and especially immigrant women, has been characterized as something like a hate campaign.

From my very first Facebook post on this matter, I clearly stated that I was committed to protecting “fundamental constitutional rights” and ensuring no “violations of basic rights” were occurring. To me, this is about making sure people, especially women, understand our nation guarantees certain rights and liberties, and those should not be surrendered.

It is baffling to comprehend the amount of controversy generated by my support as mayor of Irving for a state law that simply asks family law judges to uphold American fundamental constitutional rights when deciding a case that involves a conflicting foreign law.

Most often the victims of unjust foreign law are women and from immigrant communities. How can defending these newcomers to America be considered disrespectful or hateful?

The controversy was compounded by the recent news that Texas has a functioning Shariah tribunal in Dallas. It is true that I was alarmed by this development since Shariah law is clerically based and there is no evidence that this “court” (as it was called initially) aligns its determinations with American laws. Nor is there any procedural guarantee that constitutional rights are protected in this setting. Indeed, the very members of this “court” were holding themselves forth as both “attorneys” and “judges” despite the fact that none of them held a law degree or was licensed to practice in Texas. From inception, this was a violation of our laws.

Currently, Texas courts allow parties to subject themselves to foreign laws rather than state laws in family law matters (see the case Jabri vs. Qaddura from 2003). It states, “Once the party establishes the claim within the arbitration agreement, the trial court must compel arbitration and stay its own proceedings.”

In other words, as much as we have heard that these tribunals are “nonbinding,” the fact is they are enforceable in Texas courts even when foreign law is the foundation. Also of note, Texas has the third most Shariah law cases in the country.

My original concerns have been heightened as disturbing news has just come from a British study of England’s approximately 85 Shariah courts. The 40-page report, titled, “A Parallel World: Confronting the Abuse of Many Muslim Women in Britain Today,” details the operations of what have become parallel legal systems. Most disturbing are the general findings that Britain’s so-called arbitration tribunals are treating women in a discriminatory manner.

A BBC investigation highlighted in the study shows an Islamic judge instructing an undercover reporter to report domestic abuse to the police only “as a last resort” and to consider whether she had done things that prompted the violence, such as “is it because of my cooking?” The report concludes with many heart-wrenching case studies of women who were forced to endure violence and miserable conditions under the supervision of these Islamic tribunals.

Americans should learn the errors of the British system and take prudent, measured actions to both educate, inform and secure the rights of women in our nation.

I would further note that while many articles have been written in publications across our county admonishing discriminatory practices against women in the workplace, income equality and other gender-bias issues, none of the recent articles by local publications have even hinted at the fact that in many cases foreign laws put women at an enormous and discriminatory disadvantage.

Since raising this issue, I have been contacted by numerous women who not only confirmed my concern about the application of foreign law in our communities, but thanked me for giving voice to this matter and encouraging reforms to be enacted. Those who have worked to demean my intent and demonize my actions may not care about protecting these women, but that will not deter me from standing for them and their rights on American soil.

Where the bills stand

HB 562, by state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, with 45 Republican co-authors, would protect marriages and parent-child relationships from loss of constitutional rights to foreign laws. Status: Pending in committee.

HB 670, by Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Van, would reinforce the state’s civil code by preventing courts, arbitrators or administrative judges from basing any ruling “on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate” a constitutional right. Status: Pending in committee.